The separation of powers is the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial functions of governments. In the US the separation is reached by extensive checks and balances. The most significant operation in the separation of personnel meaning that no member can be part of more than branch which differs from the UK where for example the Prime Minister is part of the executive and the legislative branch. It helps the system in a way that the separation of powers is a safeguard against tyranny as no individual or group is able to dominate the political system through control of more than one branch. It also means that members of Congress are not elected on a joint mandate as members of a prospective government, as would be the case in a parliamentary system, but to represent the interests of their districts and states, and on a separate mandate from the president.
Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed. Furthermore, many think the UKs fragmented constitution leads to more flexibility in political matters and allows politicians to easily modernise and adapt outdated clauses. This view is often supported with negative examples from the USA’s codified constitutional system. Such as, the topical debate on amending US citizen’s constitutional right to bear arms amidst rising gun crime. The fact the amendment is codified makes it difficult for the US government to modify it even though it is outdated and highly detrimental to US society.
The states have more power within themselves, and can set some of their own laws, giving more power to the states. The ninth amendment is important because it gives American’s more rights than just what was stated. If the Bill of Rights were the only rights the citizens got, there would still be many more limitations on what Americans can and cannot do. This gives more power to the citizens and it takes it away from the government. Many of the states were concerned about the government having too much power, and by allowing the citizens more power than just what was stated in the Bill of Rights, it ensures that the government will remain in check.
One way these rights could be defined is through a bill of rights that specifies the rights and freedoms of the individual and also defines the legal extent the civil liberty. However, codified constitutions are sometimes to rigid as higher law is harder to change than statute law. It is easier and quicker to introduce an Act of Parliament then to amend a constitution as the Constitution is so entrenched. Therefore, it is difficult to keep a constitution up-to-date, this is very bad, especially in our modern ‘ever-changing environment. Furthermore, if we adopt a codified constitution then one of the key principles in the UK’s representative democracy would be completely undermined, Parliamentary Sovereignty would effectively be abolished as a codified constitution would mean the establishment of an authority higher than
In short, the Court was asked to determine whether the segregation of schools was at all constitutional. In this case discrimination was the main factor in which affected the rights of African American’s to have more freedom. The Supreme Court's opinion in the brown case of 1954 legally ended decades of racial segregation in America's public schools. Originally named
A codified constitution is a constitution in which key constitutional provisions are collected within a single document, it is commonly known as a written constitution. Codified constitutions have three key features. In a codified constitution the document itself is authoritative in the sense that it constitutes higher law. The provisions of a constitution are also said to be entrenched. This means that they are difficult to amend or abolish.
Article III of the US Constitution establishes the judiciary branch - the Supreme Court. Although the US Constitution includes democratic principles such as checks and balances and the separation of powers to ensure the equal balance of power amongst the government branches, the legislative branch was designed to be most powerful. The organization and qualifications of Congress also contribute to the democratic shortcomings of the US Constitution. One of the biggest of these government decisions is electing the president, for which the system of the electoral college is in place. The US Constitution did not abolish slavery, and an interesting guarantee regarding slavery was included in Article IV of the Constitution.
* Civil Rights: Immigration and Naturalization * The Supreme Court of the United States is one of the most, if not the most powerful institution in this country. This being said, it would be normal to ask ourselves if they use their power wisely and with equality. In my personal opinion the Supreme Court uses their authority wisely, trying to stick to what they think and interpret from constitution in terms of the civil rights, this paper will discuss three cases supporting my case. * I first thought that the Supreme Court would always use its power in order to go against immigrants when the cases were presented, this has a lot to do with the prejudice and more importantly the historical past between the United States and Latin America, specifically my country, the Dominican Republic. While I was growing up I would always hear people saying how unfair the United States was with our people in terms of naturalization, the jobs that were given, and the discrimination they were facing while they were here years ago.
The constitution laid out a plan of 3 branches of government. The 3 were the executive branch, the legislative branch, and judiciary. This was included by the anti-federalists as one of their main arguments against the ratification because of the strong central government where they preferred the power to be within the states. Another reason why the anti-federalists opposed ratification was due to representation and large area republics. Because some populations are so high in certain areas, a large amount of the representatives elected to the House, anti-federalists feared, would be only the prominent and wealthy men of the area.
The constitution is certainly one of the most significant parts of the political system in the USA and a key feature of the constitution is the checks and balances between the three branches of power: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The checks and balances system has been argued to be ineffective which can be seen for a variety of reasons; there is an argument to be made that certain branches have overextended their intended powers, it can also be argued to restrict the government’s power far too much and that it allows the tyranny of the majority. However, it certainly is argued that the US system of checks and balances are very effective mainly due to the following reasons; it can be seen to strike the right balance between flexibility to maintain an effective government and the limiting of power and is able to effectively limit government. One argument that the system of checks and balances are ultimately ineffective is that certain branches powers can be seen to be overextended past their intended powers. This view is ultimately a right wing argument; this is because that the right want a small government which would be ensured by strong checks and balance which promoted gridlock which is against the idea of certain branches being overextended as overextended powers lead to less gridlock which leads to larger government making this issue a right wing one.